Support Board
Date/Time: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:27:42 +0000
AMP + Sierra Chart
View Count: 1724
| [2021-03-10 04:01:37] |
| User658054 - Posts: 3 |
|
Hello Dear, I am AMP customer that I am using Sierra Chart v3 (the free version) with CQG with Eurex+Cme (top-of-book level) data feed. My english is not so good, so I can't understand very well all the info posted. I would like to know what I have to do in order to continue doing trading as before with Sierra Chart Thank you. |
| [2021-03-10 15:33:49] |
| John - SC Support - Posts: 38150 |
|
As of this point, you will be paying for your Sierra Chart services directly to us instead of through AMP. As such, the next renewal is set for April 10, 2021. Therefore, you would need to have at least $26.00 USD in your account prior to that day in order for the service to automatically renew. You can add funds to your account here: https://www.sierrachart.com/UserControlPanel.php?page=AddAccountCredit That is really all you need to do. Just make sure that you have enough funds in your account to allow the automatic renewals to take place. For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2021-03-10 18:24:15] |
| |
|
All of the instructions you need are here: Notice: Transition to Direct Sierra Chart Billing For SC Accounts through Broker Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2021-03-19 12:17:49] |
| User658054 - Posts: 3 |
|
What I understand is that I will have to pay data feed directly to Sierra Chart instead of AMP. No extra cost for using Sierra Chart, only those $26USD/month. Is that right? Thank you. |
| [2021-03-19 14:39:44] |
| John - SC Support - Posts: 38150 |
|
You do not have any data feeds from us. Therefore, you are not paying for any data feed. The $26.00 USD per month is for the usage time for Package 3. That is your only Sierra Chart related cost at this time. If you do want to add data from us, then that would be an additional cost. For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2021-03-20 23:31:54] |
| User931283 - Posts: 55 |
|
We appreciate your efforts, and generally strong fast SC platform. I am on AMP CQG, Package-3 Free paid by AMP, a main reason I tried Sierra Charts. (This posting=my original demo acct). Likely 2/3 of SC users came to you by AMP/brokers promotion and subsidy (<-- a deciding factor), and by AMP-CQG's high reputation and performance. Amp listed you in Top 3 of 50 Platforms, as 3 Free, and still does: https://www.ampfutures.com/platforms/ Likely AMP pays you $15/mo. to subsidize new Clients (indirectly you) (you call discount). There's a huge difference between “discount” and "Free"; To AMP users on Pkg 3, you are taking away our $180/yr aid, taking us from Zero to $26/mo, the whole amount, costing us $312/yr from Zero. The best solution is: just add a mandatory $10/mo Support Fee to help cover support/development up to 3 hrs per year. Customers sympathize with supplier difficulties and accept "reasonable" (20%) increases, or a $10/mo fee. (Hopefully versions older than 2 years (to 3 yrs) should still run but get no support without paying extra, but help us to upgrade). Easy. No changes. Raise AMP $1, + user $10= you get your $26/mo. Better, you stay at top on AMP's top 3 "Free" list. Add a footnote about Support $10. Pushing your Data feeds seems part of a strategy to be a leader in good data feeds,-- but most of us (And thanks to you) have seen NO delay or problem from CQG in years, regardless your many harsh criticisms of CQG. A lot of us hoped you'd mostly leave SC more like V1992, to keep most major features that brought us to SC (broker and feed neutrality, backward & other (Excel) compatibility, documentation, ability to run on average computer, no recompiles). Forced upgrades and “improvements" took features away, and caused serious problems for some (me). Most above features touted to entice, you took away, SC knowing huge investments of learning and programming were required which force users to stay on. You, us, brokers are in this together like symbiotic organisms. Only by us working together to grow the user base can most of us survive because most traders fail within a year (avg.2 years on SC?), yet these parts must execute fast, near-flawlessly. Users need user growth, mainly to sustain you other parts of our symbiosis (and bring in new funds). Key to user growth is reputations, promotion, no big failures, and not making users angry. This billing change implicates 3 of those. Your support gets more surly: You say "don't want to hear any complaints", "don't want to hear it", "this is best", "don't talk to the broker", “you get too much.. we're too busy" [don't bother us]. [paraphrased]. Demanding upgrade to latest version for this billing change is to make your feed the default? That may be "tying" a product/cost that most customers don't want (unless we were not forced to change billing, pay more and upgrade). I can’t upgrade because your unneeded recalc. "improvement" caused fine-running V1992 to not run after V2011. (Fix: add option to turn off recalc). Among touted features to entice us that you are taking away is the AMP subsidy beneficial to AMP, to users, and promotion value for SC. AMP’s false offer or SC’s interference in a beneficial relationship as viewed from AMP and users against SC-- appear improper and unnecessarily damaging. Your choosing to spend great time on features many of us didn't need, we should not be saddled to pay: microsecond time stamps, tick-inside bar views, date revision, 1200+?? depth, revised recalculation, spreadsheet formats, order routing, etc..(Smart companies ask customers). It is unfair to force us to suffer difficult upgrades and cover costs for unwanted features and feeds, while losing main features used to entice us. Will you get angry, tell us to go somewhere else, that we take too much time, etc.? Will users ask AMP to fulfill offer/acceptance of "Free" you offered jointly? I hope not. Just add an easy, reasonable $10 Support Fee to get your $26/mo. Let's not get bogged down in viewpoints we know differ; This $10 fee solves your problem, avoids problems and keeps you on top at AMP. None of us want to see a rift between you and AMP, and formal complaints and SC User Reviews/Complaint Websites come about. But, appearing hard-headed, surly, telling us what's best (for you), not caring, uncompromising, unilateral choices and acts... are things we see happen when a company becomes high-handed and uncaring of customer views and harms. Please do not respond until you sleep on this idea.. one night. |
| [2021-03-21 00:25:23] |
| |
|
the whole amount, costing us $312/yr from Zero. This price is definitively not correct. You need to refer to the discount table here:Description of Service Packages and Pricing: Multiple Month Purchase Discount Better, you stay at top on AMP's top 3 "Free" list. Add a footnote about Support $10. We have no interest in being there and never did. , regardless your many harsh criticisms of CQG. These are based upon user reports. So these are actual user reported problems. A lot of us hoped you'd mostly leave SC more like V1992, to keep most major features that brought us to SC (broker and feed neutrality, backward & other (Excel) compatibility, documentation, ability to run on average computer, no recompiles). Forced upgrades and “improvements" took features away, and caused serious problems for some (me). Most above features touted to entice, you took away, SC knowing huge investments of learning and programming were required which force users to stay on. This is completely factually untrue, and there is almost no user, who would agree with this at all. The only thing removed was Excel support and gladly so. Microsoft is a demonic company like their founder. Otherwise, the functionality is the same, and expanded upon. And Sierra Chart does run on an average computer. And if an ACSIL custom study recompile is necessary, that is very easy and can be done directly within Sierra Chart."don't talk to the broker", This statement about not contacting a broker, is due to AMP telling us they are getting burdened with questions from Sierra Chart users. This is not our problem. We are just trying to help take that burden away.Demanding upgrade to latest version for this billing change is to make your feed the default? No it is because we need to make sure that users have entered their own email address on their Sierra Chart account they are using which was provided by a broker. In many cases it is not their own email. Newer versions of Sierra Chart require your own email address be set on your account to login.If you tell us your Sierra Chart account name, we can prevent the update requirement. I can’t upgrade because your unneeded recalc. "improvement" caused fine-running V1992 to not run after V2011. (Fix: add option to turn off recalc).
There is definitely no one who has this issue. And we do not know the specific details of your issue either.Your choosing to spend great time on features many of us didn't need, we should not be saddled to pay: microsecond time stamps, tick-inside bar views, date revision, 1200+?? depth, revised recalculation, spreadsheet formats, order routing, etc..(Smart companies ask customers). It is unfair to force us to suffer difficult upgrades and cover costs for unwanted features and feeds, while losing main features used to entice us. There is no extra cost for all of the functionality Sierra Chart continues to add over the years. That is obvious and hard and indisputable fact that the entire world can see. And every user, needs to pay the same price. And the price of Sierra Chart is very very cheap especially when you look at the rampant inflation in the USD at this time. We are lowering Sierra Chart prices by not increasing them when there is rampant inflation occurring. That is also a basic hard fact. It is both shockingly cheap. And there are no difficult upgrades. That is completely untrue.telling us what's best (for you), The transition to direct billing is best for everyone including the brokers. They should not be acting as payment processors. Customers should always be paying for their trading platform, if it has an extra cost, directly to the provider of that product. Especially if the provider of that product is providing the support for it. There should be a one-to-one relationship.It is a huge mistake for us to put another party in the middle of this. We know our product best, and can support it best for users. In short post #6, is not representative of our user base at all. You are making numerous misstatements. Billing through brokers has factually proven to be a mistake for everyone. Sierra Chart is not free (nothing is), and has a very reasonable price. And for what it offers, it is at the lowest price on the market. It was a mistake, for it to be offered through brokers and that will never happen again. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-03-21 04:50:45
|
| [2021-03-21 22:42:47] |
| User931283 - Posts: 55 |
|
12mo.s x 26= $312. Accurate for paid monthly, as it was paid. But $20/mo for 6 months.. not too bad. "..no interest in being there" on AMP's list? I'd appreciate years of them bringing many clients and subsidizing them so they gain time to learn to use your system (takes a year+)? But we didn't see all the "behind the scenes" problems of mixed-up communications/responsibilities. Much backward compatibility is gone. Broker/Execution choices are down. Let's move on. A survey of users (over 6 months with SC) re new features would avoid inexperienced vocal users leading direction, and guessing; I urge Surveys-- hear all users, weighting experienced users-traders more on features.. to save time/money. You make fair arguments re the base cost and not increasing price (to you). Still, adding $10 per month and letting AMP subsidize the rest would make us happier. Oh well. Will check-update the email for SC account associated with broker, in a day or two-- should be unchanged. That gives time to solve my V2012 (V2007 recalc changes) upgrade problem below: Re: My recalc tagging/ upgrade Problem: I asked about recalculation changes (V2006-V2008?) before this 2020-12-20 post: 32-bit Builds of Sierra Chart to be Discontinued with Newer Versions | Post: 244731 Chartbook Charts unnecessarily tagged for full recalculation issue? | Post: 257191 and Chartbook Charts unnecessarily tagged for full recalculation issue? | Post: 257391 sum up my problem. I run 64 bit Windows; I'n not opposed to 64bit. I'm stuck on V1991 because I could not get V2011/12 to run. All #CircRef were eliminated months before 12-2020. Saying other users had no problem does not prove there's not a problem on a large, closely-timed "funnel" system, nor solve mine. Else, why did this all run great on V1991 but not V2012? V1991 has no continuous "full recalc" - it runs every day. Overlays flow down 10 charts or so, among about 30 charts, many sheets on each of 12 Spreadsheets.., in fast scalping, 1 sec setting, 200 to 490 msec staggered Chart calc. settings... Rarely sending a result back to a prior chart for another section does not necessarily require recalc. Only the "Overlay Study" causes this, which does not work as well as one we built, which treats related study subcharts as an array. Those calculation settings were "tuned" and staggered to distribute load (no Circular ref errors). No users do this in 14 time frames (bar length, most under 5 min. bars, similar time lengths per Spreadsheet) Helping get complex hi-speed configurations (like this) to run fast/ not fail on upgrades should be a SC priority, as a test benefiting everyone. I urge you identify about 10 of the most-complex, fast trade users as prime feedback, worth a bit more time listening. Why in 5 charts re-trigger 10 feeder-charts to recalculate when all are in the process of calculating already? They all have fresh data on average within about 250 msec. That eliminates all recalculation needs. Please add a "no recalculation" or "use pre-V2006 recalc method"... option... solves my problem (can live with new time/dates/depth revisions, hopefully). |
| [2021-03-27 16:45:33] |
| User658054 - Posts: 3 |
|
Hi, I never paid to AMP for using sierra chart pack3. Only datafeed with CQG and comissions of buy/sell. So what I understand is that from now I will have to pay an extra 26 dollars for doing the same until now. After trying lot of platforms, what I found very interesting of SC and made difference from others was that have interesting features and no need to extra pay. For those that we trade with low leverage and don't expect huge gains, that extra 26$/month is a handicap. I have to consider what to do now. Regards |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: